They found that significant near peripersonal misbisections occurred in the above eye level tasks. Whereas, far peripersonal misbisections were replicated in the below eye level tasks. Further, Jeerakathil and Kirk (1994) found similar results. Their study showed significant bisection biases towards the TOP (they used labels at each end of stimulus lines: TOP, BOTTOM) of both horizontal and vertical lines, as well as in the below eye level radial condition. Again, the bias towards far peripersonal space in the below eye level condition was nullified when the stimuli were presented above eye level. Kageyama, Imagase, Okubo and Takayama (1994), looked at vertical and radial neglect in unilateral brain damaged patients. They concluded that neither vertical nor radial neglect can be explained by visual field defect, because some of the participants in this study did not have visual field defect, but they consistently displayed far or near peripersonal bias in radial line bisections and superior vertical neglect. Thus, the results tend to support the attentional bias theory of line bisection. This study will be based on previous works by Heilman and other research teams, in the area of visual and tactile line bisection and the pursuit of attentional biases. It is expected that the results will show a difference in mean line bisection error (LBE) in favor of the male participants, thus confirming the common perception of male superiority in visual spatial tasks, versus women.MethodParticipants Four men and eight women participated in this study. They are students at Simon Fraser University, in a Psychology 303 course. All are participating as part of their class participation mark, as well as a reciprocal subject cooperative. The researcher should have confirmed that all subjects have normal vision (corrected if necessary), no neurological deficits, and no history of brain injury or trauma, however, due to time constraints, thes...
